It seems that currently this section discussed things, that may or may not about your former edits, ehh, (added Wikidata usage instructions(P2559) value "List subjects which the article covers. Do not use P527 "has part" as parts of an article are the title, sections and paragraphs.") don't you need to join this thread?

WHO COVID-19 data

Hello again. I have one question: should we edit Q81068910 to differentiate between P585 and P577? Because there is a time lag of one day, since the data published on day n are the analysis of the last 24 hours (n-1).

@Lofhi I think point in time(P585) is probably best at the moment as it provides an indication of when WHO compiled data from dozens of countries together to form that global statistic. It's not going to overly accurate due to some countries creating their daily reports in timezones ~20 hours apart, and the WHO then compiling whatever they have access to at a particular point in time(P585).

Q81068910

It could be wise to test scripts on items that has a rather low visibility, or even do testrun in the sandbox. Just I friendly remainder, I have messed up items myself, and it is not cool when people at several wikis start yelling at you.

Data was added manually and not by script--but yes, I did make a lot of changes in the process due to finding a better way to model the data on 2019-nCov. It looks like @Salgo60 has also started importing the same data each day from the WHO, but using QuickStatements to do so (much more efficient).

Another thing, at some point the spread will probably be so massive the numbers will stop making sense. I'm not sure how that should be modelled. It will then go from a confirmed number to an estimated number.

I've been wondering about statistics, and whether there are some cases where the dynamic is such that we need an alternate way to update and query the values. In particular, that statistics somehow isn't a first order member of one item or even several items, but rather it is related to several of them as a born digital entity itself, and perhaps even related to items of heterogeneous type. It is not metadata about a single item, it is statistics about several items.

Thanks for the invite @99of9. I'm Melbourne based, but hope it's a great meetup and opportunity to catch up amongst the Sydney Wikifolk. Do you mention these events in the weekly Wikidata news updates before or after the event? It'd be great to get a quick summary there to raise awareness of these meetups and projects including those on the agenda for the workshop--AustLII and SLNSW.

Community Insights Survey

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikidata and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

New page for catalogues

Hi, I created a new page for collecting sites that could be added to Mix'n'match and I plan to expand it with the ones that already have scrapers by category. Feel free to expand, use for property creation. Best, Adam Harangozó (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Repology project names

After some fixes I've made here (removed some incorrect properties and split some entries which referred to multiple projects at once) and in Repology (added some missing project merges) it looks like Repology can be switched to using P:P6931 instead of Arch/AUR package names to match Wikidata entries to its projects. Currently there are also more entries with P:P6931 filled (1999) than with Arch/AUR packages (1271) so it'll also increase coverage. However not all entries with packages have Repology names filled yet, so switching now would cause some entries to disappear. Since you're adding P6931s you'd probably be interested in filling the remaining ones. If you need any data for that, feel free to ask me. I've created Wikidata:Partnerships and data imports to discuss that, but haven't got any feedback yet.